Boards

Paraphrasing famous general Clausewicz, you accomplish objectives and win wars by not prevaricating and dedicating the maximum possible amount of resources to the effort.

With regard to ongoing events in the middle east:

- allocating a larger cache of opinion to politicians at home rather than to commanders in the theater,
- constant PR squabbling between politicians and armchair generals in the public,
- and shuffling forces from Iraq to Afghanistan despite mission objectives not being met,

doesn't seem to be the way to go about things.

Now I was one of those people who was firmly against the war in Iraq (not the same as a general war against 'terror') for various reasons. Now we are there however, I feel that the job should be done right.

The aforementioned points put me in mind that there should be MORE troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (especially the 'Ghan) rather than less.

but, the forces in iraq are a)annoying the locals b)drawing in foreing terrorists c) making the locals more terrorable. If we have trained up the iraqi army properly then i would think that would be a better solution than just throwing lots more troops at it.

How about we take everyone wearing combats in Iraq and drop them in America, then take everyone wearing combats in the Shoreditch area, airdrop them in?

The Iraqis would be shellshocked, the few civilian casualties would be bearable, as they'd free up the odd Japanese girlfriend; the British govt would airlift the fashionista scum out of there quicksmart. Iran would then promptly invade, and no-one wants to fuck with Iran. They crazy. War over.

- Depends what democracy we want installed. I prefer the type that is totally subservient to our interests. Or Soviet Democracy as it used to be known.

- Combined, coalition forces have enough manpower and technology to make Iraq safer than rural Cornwall, and moreover completely crush any kind of threat. What people forget is that the USA is a country that pretty much bankrolled the allies during World War 2 on its own, and still had cash and ships left over to prosecute a war on two fronts. And it's only gotten richer since then.

No, what is lacked is the willpower to deploy them - cause apparently people in the West only like wars when they're completely sanitised and injury-free.

There's something to be said for brute force, but it's not much without the accompanying wit and cunning.

Or as Clausewicz put it (in the quote I somehow couldn't remember earlier): "It is necessary to wage war with the utmost energy, or NOT AT ALL... The maximum use of force is in NO WAY incompatible with the simultaneous use of the intellect.... Woe to the government, which, relying on half hearted politics and a shackled military policy, meets a foe who, like the untamed elements, knows no law other than his own power."

As true as it was in his time, with the then newfangled massively manouverable formations of Napoleon's armies coming up against Prussian military councils who preferred to debate for a few decades rather than 'ave it - these words have a lot of relevance today, what with the war seemingly wholly controlled by politicians who out of necessity to the polling companies, keep one eye on the newspaper op-ed columns and another on the budget, without asking themselves - what exactly do they want to accomplish in the middle east.